TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 787
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeals against the respective orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) confirming the orders of Assessing Officer relevant to assessment year 2013-14. 2. Since facts involved in these appeals are same and identical, hence, the appeals were heard together and for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are being consolidated and disposed of by this common order. Similar grounds are taken in other six appeals, except the difference in figure. Therefore, for the sake of reference and facility, facts in case of M/s Zoom Heritage Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi in ITA 2774/Del/2017 (AY 2013-14) are being discussed and the grounds of appeal raised in this Appeal are reproduced hereunder:- 1. That the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd to the facts of the case, because of not following rule of consistency while passing the assessment order for the assessment year 2013-14. 6. That the AO has further failed to appreciate while making illegal and impugned additions of Rs. 25,12,597/- in the declared income of the appellant that the appellant company is maintaining and possessing proper books of account, as required under the law wherein the entire transactions have already been reflected/recorded, as such no adverse inference if any, could be drawn only on the imagination and guess work. 7. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts of the case as even after accepting profits as per books of account he presumed that the appellant company is in the business of providin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income declaring income of Rs. 3,08,850/- on 26.11.2014, which was later processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in Short "Act"). The AO observed that since the assessee filed its return of income after the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. 31.3.2014, penalty proceedings u/s. 271F will be initiated separately. Later, the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 1.9.2015 and served. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire was issued on 03.12.2015. In response thereto, the A.R. for the assessee company attended the proceedings from time to time and filed the details called for. The brief issue in dispute is with regard to addition of Rs. 16,44,240/- being c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accommodation entry. He further submitted that on identical facts, in immediately preceding assessment year 2012-13, the AO has accepted the returned income while passing assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act after holding that the assessee is an conduit company engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries. In this behalf, he draw my attention towards the assessment year 2012-13 which placed in the Paper Book Pg. 1-19. He further submitted that in AY 2012-13, the AO relied upon the affidavit of Directors of the assessee company and as per the said affidavit, the Director has admitted that assessee was charging commission @ 0.10% on entry business and as such same rate is also relevant in the year under consideration. He furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any is an entry provider. However, the next question to be answered is regarding estimation of commission income taxable in the hands of assessee company which is engaged in the business of providing accommodation entry. The Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) have applied 0.60% (60 paise to Rs. 1 per Rs. 100) on total credit entries appearing in the bank account whereas the Ld. AR is relying upon the assessment order for AY 2012-13 and affidavit of the Director wherein, it has been stated that appellant was charging 0.10% (10 paise to Rs. 1 per Rs. 100). However, on specific query from the Bench, neither of the sides could substantiate the basis for arriving at rate of 0.60% or 0.10%. I am also aware of the fact that in case of business of pr....